Review/Reseña Nahua and Zapotec Colonial Experiences Michel R

Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2011, 383-391 www.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente Review/Reseña Susan Schroeder, ed. The Conquest All Over Again: Nahuas and Zapotecs Thinking, Writing, and Painting Spanish Colonialism. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2010. Nahua and Zapotec Colonial Experiences Michel R. Oudijk Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México The book under review is a collection of nine essays by renowned ethnohistorians. The main title and the introduction by Susan Schroeder describe their contents as related to the conquest of Mexico, and as such, seem to be another of a considerable number of publications on the subject (Matthew and Oudijk, 2007; Oudijk and Restall, 2008; Asselbergs, 2008). In the introduction these nine contributions are explicitly identified with what has been called the “New Conquest History, which perceptively and boldly shifts attention from the familiar, singular Spanish version of what transpires during the taking of the Aztecs’ capital and complements, but challenges it with a new, vital literature produced by and for the natives themselves” (8). Given this clear position, it is somewhat surprising that after having read the book I have to conclude that only one of the nine chapters Oudijk 384 counters “official” conquest historiography, and most do not deal with the conquest at all. Curiously enough, the essays do not fit under the banner of the subtitle either. It suggests that the texts deal with how Nahuas and Zapotecs viewed Spanish colonialism. However, although some of the authors discuss how Nahua chroniclers and scribes responded to new necessities of the colonial period, this is a far cry from their view on Spanish colonialism. So, in reviewing the individual chapters, we will learn what they do contain. The book starts off with a fascinating text by Kevin Terraciano. He analizes three Tlatelolco accounts of the conquest of Tenochtitlan in which they represent themselves as brave, heroic warriors in contrast to the cowardly Tenochca people. The texts discussed are the two versions of the Anales de Tlatelolco (BnF 22 and 22bis) and book twelve of Sahagún's Códice Florentino. While this chapter deals with the conquest, Terraciano does not set out to counterbalance the Spanish conquest story, but rather to show how the Tlatelolca used these events to boost their identity; a typical yet beautiful example of Mesoamerican micropatriotism. Actually, this aspect comes back over and over again in this book: the idea that the community is the center of everything and all efforts are directed towards making it more important, more beautiful, and more powerful. This is not something related to Spanish colonialism, but with prehispanic tendencies that continued and even grew stronger during and after the conquest. Travis Kranz writes on three closely related pictorials from Tlaxcala and suggests an argumentative change in their contents related to specific claims before Spanish authorities. This chapter may be more in keeping with the subtitle of the book, although it concerns an indigenous response to new colonial realities rather than a Tlaxcalan view on it. The text discusses two versions of the famed “Lienzo de Tlaxcala” and a pictorial fragment kept by the Nettie Lee Benson Collection in Austin. It is well argued and clearly written, but much of it was already known from Kranz’ previous publication on similar subjects in Sources and Methods for the Study of Postconquest Mesoamerican Ethnohistory (2007). A similar argument could be made in regard to the contribution by Louise Burkhart about a Nahua play on the destruction of Jerusalem. This chapter shows Burkhart’s profound knowledge of Nahua colonial religious texts and the ability to explain it Nahua and Zapotec Colonial Experiences 385 to the readers, but good parts of the chapter are very similar to what she published on the same topic in volume four of the Nahuatl Theater series (2009: 20-30). The main point of the chapter is supposedly a parallel between the destruction of Jerusalem and that of Tenochtitlan, but it actually is a representation of the Nahuatl and Spanish accounts on Jerusalem and an explanation of why certain parts were taken out or added to the Nahuatl version. Again, Burkhart’s argument is clear and solid and the subject of the article is important and fascinating in showing the importance of these works for our understanding of Nahua adaptations to colonial life. The next three chapters are very similar as regards their format and contents, but very different as regards their conclusions. All three are strongly bio- and bibliographical in nature, but each has a different author as its focus. Susan Schroeder considers Chimalpahin, of course. Few scholars know this Nahua chronicler and his works better than Schroeder and her many detailed and exhaustive studies have raised him almost to the level of Bernardino de Sahagún. Notwithstanding the title of the chapter, “Chimalpahin Rewrites the Conquest,” the contribution is not really about the conquest nor about rewriting. Rather, Schroeder explains how Chimalpahin associates Nahua history with historical events recorded in the Bible. She suggests that Chimalpahin Christianized his texts in order to ward off suspicions by Spanish friars. While this may be the case, it is not explained why contemporary authors like Tezozomoc or Zapata y Mendoza did not do so. It is important to note that Chimalpahin lived and worked in the church of San Antonio Abad and, therefore, must have been a very religious man. Rather than thinking of him as trying to ward off anything, maybe it would be more productive to consider him as somebody who did not have anything to ward off but was simply and authentically Christian. Amber Brian’s chapter gains in importance if it is contrasted to Schroeder’s. She discusses Ixtlilxochitl and, without being aware of it, paints an apparent radically different historical context than Chimalpahin’s, even though they were contemporaries. At no time is there any mention of the radical differences between the writings of both chroniclers. Did Ixtlilxochitl have any fear of being rounded up by zealous friars? He certainly did not resort to Chimalpahin’s tactics of Oudijk 386 loading his accounts with Christian morals. This would have been an interesting theme to discuss, but Brian does not take up the glove. Instead, this contribution is probably the most distant from the New Conquest History as it defines several of Ixtlilxochitl’s texts as relaciones de méritos and consequently considers them misrepresentations. However, the point is—and this is the central issue of the New Conquest History—that the main sources of the “Spanish” conquest historiography, like the Cortés’ and Díaz del Castillo's accounts, are also such relaciones de méritos but that this aspect has not prevented historians from using them. Ixtlilxochitl’s texts should, therefore, be used in the reevaluation of history and should receive the same historical criticism as Spanish sources. There is no reason for pre- conceived doubts about the historicity of indigenous or mestizo sources like Ixtlilxochitl’s. The third biographical chapter is Camilla Townsend’s on Juan Buenaventura Zapata y Mendoza. This author deserves more attention after Luis Reyes and Andrea Martínez’s (1995) initial publication of his chronicles and I am glad that Townsend has done so. The text starts off with a long biographic section followed by a discussion on how Zapata y Mendoza got hold of his material. This is an important part of the chapter, as few people know this author at all. However, as in previous essays, the title suggests that the chapter will deal with something and yet this is not really the case. Now it is “Nahua identity” and there is very little discussion of this issue (156-157). Townsend tries to show that some sort of us (Nahuatl speakers) versus them (Spanish speakers) existed, but she gives very little evidence of this. Questions about the Spanish priests’ knowledge of Nahuatl were actually part of the so- called residencias and normal practice in colonial New Spain. A reading of the next chapter, by Barry Sell, would have made clear the Spanish priests need to speak Nahuatl. An interesting point raised by Townsend concerns the use of the term indios in Nahuatl texts written by Zapata y Mendoza. This certainly is very particular to this chronicler, but, as is shown in the chapter, this use can be explained by Zapata y Mendoza’s need for a category for ‘indigenous people’ and so he used the term indios, common in Spanish colonial texts. At the same time, however, Townsend’s text makes clear that Zapata y Mendoza wrote to boost the identity of his community, another case of micropatriotism. Nahua and Zapotec Colonial Experiences 387 Barry Sell’s chapter is a fascinating discussion of how instructional materials and confesionarios for Jesuit priests were formed, based on the study of samples of confessions found in private notes by Horacia Carochi, the renowned Jesuit priest and nahuatlato. It explains the difficulties Spanish-speaking priests encountered in learning the indigenous languages of New Spain, as well as the important role native speakers played in the preparation of materials for these priests. Sell shows so well that what is still often perceived as a Spanish “spiritual” conquest, is much more complex and normally due to the participation of indigenous people themselves. In this somewhat remote sense this chapter could be regarded as part of the New Conquest History as it questions the idea of an overwhelmingly Spanish effort to indoctrinate the indigenous population simply and passively with the Christian doctrine. However, it should be noted too that Sell's valuable contribution does not concern ‘Nahuas and Zapotecs thinking, writing, and painting Spanish Colonialism,’ since it is about the experiences of an Italian Jesuit trying to provide his Spanish students with materials so they can become fluent speakers of Nahuatl.

Load more